Deepak Roshan,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier preferred writ application being W.P.(S) No. 2347 of 2004 challenging the order of dismissal dated 21.04.2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pakur. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the DIG, Dumka to consider and dispose of the appeal, if any, pending before him, preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter, the appellate authority had passed the impugned order.
(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order in appeal is completely nonspeaking order as the same has been passed without giving any reason and the only reason which has been assigned by the appellate authority in sustaining the order of dismissal is that prior to this episode also the petitioner was habitual absentee. He further contended that the same was never the charge; as such on the one hand, the charge is vague and on the other hand; the punishment is beyond the charge. He further referred to the order of punishment dated 21.04.2001 and submits that even in this order the disciplinary authority had taken the ground of previous acts of the petitioner in punishing him which was never the charge and as such the same is not permissible in the eye of law; as such the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate order be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider the case in accordance with the grounds taken in appeal. ;